Greta Thunberg would be so proud. UK’s Green Party has proposed and unanimously backed banning high-carbon advertising at a conference held in Brighton this October. Since there are existing regulations surrounding the advertising of products such as tobacco which are harmful to health, the consensus is that the advertising of products and services that pollute the environment should also be barred.
However, is this the best solution to handle an issue that needs more focused attention? Products such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and services such as air travel are commonly known as leaving a carbon footprint in manufacturing and servicing. Banning the advertising of such products and services will probably just create a knowledge gap in the market, which will not be very helpful to consumers. There must be ways to offset the downside of these products without disadvantaging their customers.
What is high-carbon advertising?
This is the advertising of products and services that emit high amounts of carbon and pollutants. Goods and products that use chemicals, steel, aluminium and concrete fall into this category, while methods of transportation such as aviation, marine shipping and trucking are also included. S&P Global Analysis, in a study from 2019-2020 shows that utilities are the most carbon-intensive sector globally, emitting over 2,600 tons of carbon dioxide per every dollar of revenue. The materials and energy sectors are not far behind.
Will reducing the advertising of high-carbon products resolve the issue?
It may not completely resolve the issue, but it’s a stepping stone to getting there. It will certainly push the businesses that offer these products and services to think about ways in which they can reduce their carbon footprint and get back on the advertising grid. What’s more, when customers find out that these companies are not advertising because they are responsible for carbon emissions, they will also stop purchasing those products.
However, this year fuel giant Shell in the UK was perturbed by the fact that their advertising campaign that sought to promote awareness of their green initiatives was banned for being ‘misleading.’ The premise was that the campaign overlooks the fact that the business uses environmentally damaging fossil fuels like petrol. For Shell, which aims to become a zero-carbon energy company by 2050, this was a tough blow. In fairness to Shell, their argument was that consumers cannot be expected to switch to better alternatives if they are not made aware through advertising and promotions, that such alternatives exist.
Australian Advertising Executive Mark Spirkovski has emphasized the importance of applauding companies’ efforts to decarbonize rather than banning their advertising altogether. Voicing his opinion on Eco-Business, he noted that the answer is not to ban fossil fuel advertising in Sydney (which recently began doing so), but to educate the consumer about what companies are doing to change so that it will lead to a changing of consumer behaviour on a national and international level.
Can technology help?
Always. Digital technology can be the solution in the energy industry such as through digital energy investment, which has been growing at 20% per annum. In addition to this, smart grids can be a useful source of increasing operational efficiency where smart meters through connection to devices, will pave the way for better consumption to match power generation profiles.
Digital data management is another technological benefit that will enable digital power networks, and provide automated operations and real-time data analytics.
But these are just for the fossil fuel sectors. What about industries like steel and concrete that have carbon emissions that cannot be completely changed by technology? These industries need fossil fuels to produce the high amounts of energy they require. The only solution then, is to come up with carbon capture technologies that collect the carbon dioxide that is emitted in production and store it rather than release it to the atmosphere. This has proven to be something quite useful in the last few years in industries such as fertilizer manufacturing.
Advertising the change
Imposing bans on the advertising of high-carbon industries might be a good solution, for now. However, there also needs to be some leeway provided in this, that any green initiatives that such companies want to launch, should be allowed to be promoted. Some might say that perhaps then, these companies should also acknowledge in their promotions that they are businesses that have contributed towards global carbon emissions. However, these companies say that this will take away from the message that they are making small, positive changes in any way they can, which is also a valid argument. Still, in the interest of transparency, this should be made mandatory.
It’s a tough call. Without advertising these companies cannot reach their market. But if they reach their target market and make enough money, they will see no reason to change. This is where technology can play a vital role- in helping such companies mitigate their downsides to become more environmentally friendly. Such companies should be required by law to adopt a new piece of technology and build on an existing one for every year in operation, that demonstrates a reduction of carbon emissions.
Another effective recourse is taxation. That is, for every advertisement that these carbon-emitting businesses put out there, they should be required to pay a tax that will not only be a deterrent to excessive advertising but also push them to think of how they can reduce carbon emissions. This should be a tax that is in addition to the carbon tax they would be required to pay to the country’s government. Thus, when the cost becomes too much for such companies, they are compelled to find greener solutions.
In the long run, banning high-carbon advertising can hurt the global economy. The aim should be to help the economy and preserve the environment at the same time.
(Anouk De Silva)